[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0911051547110.12138@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 15:54:48 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: 2.6.32-rc5-mmotm1101 - lockdep whinge during early boot
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Oleg (CC'd) made workqueues use cpu_maps_update_begin() instead of the
> > more obvious get_online_cpus() in 3da1c84c00c7e5f. Reverting that seems like
> > a bad idea.
>
> Even if create_workueue() used get_online_cpus() instead of cpu_add_remove_lock,
> we have the same problem: _cpu_up() takes cpu_hotplug.lock which is needed for
> get_online_cpus(). The dependency above becomes:
>
> cpu_up()->clocksource_change_rating() takes clocksource_mutex under
> cpu_hotplug.lock (cpu_hotplug_begin)
>
> clocksource_done_booting()->create_workueue() takes cpu_hotplug.lock
> (get_online_cpus) under clocksource_mutex
Hmm, we fixed all this lock madness in mainline already.
clocksource_done_booting() does not longer call
create_workqueue(). How got this code reverted in motm ?
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists